Credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images
Our series examining the impact of Islam and Muslim voters on the Left in advanced democracies continues with this look at the cost of pandering to certain voter bases.
Debate over Muslim migration is upending politics across the Western world. Most such discussions involve fears that Islam’s tenets are incompatible with a liberal democratic or Christian society, or that restricting Muslim migration is itself unliberal. Very little talk, however, focuses on the potentially profound effect Muslim voters are already having on Western democracies.
Muslim voters throughout the West are already one of the Left’s bedrock constituencies. Regardless of the country, the available data regularly find Islamic voters supporting leftist parties at staggering rates with margins up to 7 or 8-1 over their more right-wing competitors1.
While their absolute numbers remain in most cases small, the number of Muslim voters is growing quickly almost everywhere. This combination of overwhelming support for one party or coalition combined with rapid growth is likely to give Muslim voters a strong influence on left-wing party stances.
In some cases, one can see they already have strong influence. Centre-left parties and leaders are much likelier than their centre-right counterparts to take a strongly sympathetic view towards the Palestinians in their conflict with Israel, for example. This could be a result of the views of the majority of their voters, but it could also be due to a recognition that this would help them with the growing Muslim vote. Migration is another example where centre-left and left-wing parties are distinctly friendlier to Muslim immigration and accepting refugees from Islamic countries than centre-right parties. Again, this is probably due to a combination of conviction and calculation, but centre-left parties and leaders know that Islamic refugees or migrants constitute a strong potential voter base for them.
The Dutch Labor party discovered how abandoning this vote was detrimental its strength. It expelled two parliamentarians of Turkish origin after they refused to support the party’s policy towards integrating Islamic immigrants into Dutch society. These men formed a new party, Denk, and contested the 2017 elections on a staunchly pro-migrant and pro-Palestinian platform. Prior Islamic voter support for the Labor party collapsed, with over a third of Dutch voters of Turkish and Moroccan descent backing the new party. Denk won 2% of the vote and three seats in the Dutch Parliament, winning over 5% in each of the nation’s four largest cities2.
Denk’s platform provides one insight into the political views of many Islamic migrants in Europe3. It is for a vastly expanded social welfare system and increasing instruction in Arabic, Turkish, and other languages in schools. It wants to abolish the term “immigrant” and establish a racism register as it believes racism is endemic to Dutch society. It also seeks to abolish nuclear weapons and recognise the state of Palestine4. One founder went so far as to refuse to shake Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu’s hand at an official gathering in protest at his nation’s policies toward Palestinians.
Muslim influence on the Left could cause tensions within those parties on a host of cultural issues. In Australia’s recent referendum on same-sex marriage, for example, House seats with the highest concentration of Muslims were also the ones with the largest share of “no” votes5. Some prominent Muslim leaders actively campaigned against the referendum. These seats were ordinarily Labor strongholds, providing some of the party’s largest margins in the 2016 federal elections. While same-sex marriage is now a settled issue, other issues that pit social progressivism against Islamic tenets could pose similar divisions in the future for Leftist parties worldwide.
Tensions over migration are already present, proving difficult for Leftist parties to overcome. As British Labour Party activist Marcus Roberts explained for UnHerd, the centre-left’s traditional voter base – low-skilled manual laborers – are at odds with those parties’ new educated, upscale backers on many cultural issues including migration. Were these parties to take even stronger pro-migrant views in response to their new-found voters, they would most probably push even more of these native-born but less-skilled voters away to either populist or eager centre-right parties. Muslim support, therefore, could come at a high cost for parties that receive it without careful forethought.
In that sense the Muslim Left could play a role not dissimilar to that played by the Christian Right in America. Evangelical Christians are the Republican Party’s largest support group. They comprise roughly 25% of American voters and regularly give Republicans between 70 and 80% of their votes in national elections6. These voters’ views on cultural issues, however, is anathema to a growing segment of moderate, educated young voters. Reaching out to these voters is in the Republican Party’s long-term interest, many argue, but doing so is proving to be difficult as the existing group of evangelical supporters insists the party stay true to its social conservatism. As Muslims grow in size, their increasingly large role in centre-left and Leftist parties will prove just as difficult to manage.
The Muslim Left exists and is here to stay. How they help to shape the future of the western Left will prove to be one of the next decade’s most important political developments.
FOOTNOTES
- UK: British Muslim voters are among the most left-wing of any in the developed world, giving 85% of their votes in 2017 to Labour and only 11% to Conservatives.
Sweden: A Swedish political scientist in 2009 estimated that 70-75% of Swedish Muslims backed the centre-left Social Democrats, and another 10-15% backed one of the two other parties in the red-green alliance.
France: French Muslims gave the two main left-wing Presidential candidates, François Hollande and Jean-Luc Melenchon, 77% of their votes in the first round of the 2012 election (57% for Hollande, 20% for Melenchon). In 2017, 37 percent voted for Melenchon compared with 24% for Emmanuel Macron and 17% for Socialist Benoit Hamon. Only 15% voted for a right-wing candidate.
USA: American Muslims say they back the back the Democratic Party by a 5-1 margin over the Republicans, and have given Democratic presidential candidates between 71 and 92% of their votes sine 2004.
Germany: A pre-election survey found that over 64% of German voters with a migrant background, which included many non-Muslim German immigrants, supported one of the three left-wing parties. Support for left-wing parties was even higher among Germans with Turkish backgrounds: over 70% of Turkish Germans backed the Social Democrats while many others backed the Greens.
Canada: Only 2% of Canadian Muslims supported the governing Conservative Party in the 2015 federal elections, according to one survey; 65% backed the centre-left Liberals while 10% backed the social democratic New Democratic Party. A poll after the 2011 federal election found that only 12% of Muslims backed the Conservatives, with 46% backing the Liberals and 38% backing the New Democrats.
- Rotterdam (7.93%), Amsterdam (6.88%), the Hague (5.97%) and Utrecht (5.51%)
- See also a questionnaire circulated by a German-Muslim group prior to the 2017 election for their preferences
- All statements regarding Denk’s policies are taken from the “views” section of their website, as translated in Google Translate
- Compare the results for the referendum – with the religious preferences data from the Australian census
- See 2008 election, 2012 election, and 2016 election
Sweden: A Swedish political scientist in 2009 estimated that 70-75% of Swedish Muslims backed the centre-left Social Democrats, and another 10-15% backed one of the two other parties in the red-green alliance.
France: French Muslims gave the two main left-wing Presidential candidates, François Hollande and Jean-Luc Melenchon, 77% of their votes in the first round of the 2012 election (57% for Hollande, 20% for Melenchon). In 2017, 37 percent voted for Melenchon compared with 24% for Emmanuel Macron and 17% for Socialist Benoit Hamon. Only 15% voted for a right-wing candidate.
USA: American Muslims say they back the back the Democratic Party by a 5-1 margin over the Republicans, and have given Democratic presidential candidates between 71 and 92% of their votes sine 2004.
Germany: A pre-election survey found that over 64% of German voters with a migrant background, which included many non-Muslim German immigrants, supported one of the three left-wing parties. Support for left-wing parties was even higher among Germans with Turkish backgrounds: over 70% of Turkish Germans backed the Social Democrats while many others backed the Greens.
Canada: Only 2% of Canadian Muslims supported the governing Conservative Party in the 2015 federal elections, according to one survey; 65% backed the centre-left Liberals while 10% backed the social democratic New Democratic Party. A poll after the 2011 federal election found that only 12% of Muslims backed the Conservatives, with 46% backing the Liberals and 38% backing the New Democrats.
Henry Olsen is a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC. He is the author of The Working Class Republican: Ronald Reagan and the Return of Blue-Collar Conservatism.
henryolsenEPPC 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe title of this article is “We are Hostages to Government Fear,” but really we’re hostages to the internet. If SARS-cov2 had arrived twenty years ago we wouldn’t have had the option of working from home and we’d have had no choice but to protect the most vulnerable as best we could but otherwise take sensible precautions and just get on with life.
I’m also not sure the situation is quite as bad as the author suggests. It appears the Brits are comfortable with another four weeks of restrictions but at some point most people’s patience will wear thin. And the 600lb gorilla in the room is the economy. A very big bill is due and when it arrives people’s attention will turn to the economy, not more lockdowns.
And with the internet came the offloading of personal responsibility and the irrational deferment to scientists and so-called experts.
The push towards a bigger and fatter state (thanks EU!), has resulted in scientists and experts who face no personal risk to the predictions of doom and subsequent overreaction, in fact, they benefit from it. We have a stratum of society holding the reigns, serving themselves, and investing in the increasing level of infantilism and stupification of society.
What is even more incredible, is due to the internet, how their constant stream of failed predictions is swamped by more, increasingly outlandish, and preposterous predictions of yet more future doom.
I agree. Your second paragraph reflects the views of one of the wisest men on earth, Thomas Sowell. It is obvious when pointed out, but nothing will ever change and that is because democracy is failing us. As Plato said, democracy effectively results in idiots being put in charge. I agree about the internet, which has whipped up hysteria similar to that in. Salem in 1692.
The Mail and The Express and endless years of TV soap-Opera with its faux emotionalizing have contributed far more to the stupification of masses of peolple than the Internet. The Intrnet contains far more truth than the above organs, if you do but have the discriminating faculties to winnow it out.
I wondered what the question was that was asked for the poll. I imagine the response would have been different if conditionals were added:
1. Would you support lockdown if furlough finance finished on June 21?
2. Would you support lockdown if It meant you lost your job?
3. Would you support lockdown if your local pub closed as a consequence?
4. Would you support lockdown if you had suspicious symptoms but could not get a face-to-face doctor assessment?
I make this points as these are the actual situations facing many people due to lockdown. Decisions are being made on the narrowest of parameters. The politicians are not taking the brave choices that entail risk.
Exactly. As shown in an episode of that great comedy (or documentary?) “Yes Minister” you can always rig an opinion poll by choosing carefully the wording of the questions!
I would start by throwing out any work produced by academics whose departments are funded by the Chinese Communist Party.
We need to go further than that. Eisenhower warned about this in his farewell address, saying, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.” Did anybody listen? Certainly not the politicians.
Its time for civil disobedience and then vote them out asap.
There’s too many in the top of the government that cannot be trusted.
Vote them out and replace them with …?
That’s the thing isn’t it. I’m just coming to the conclusion that politician and government job descriptions have expanded way too far. We seem to have arrived in a place where a few people have too much power and too little competence but we, the public, kep looking to them and expect them to be able to fix everything in our lives. They can’t. If ever something was an advert for render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s then this is it. Govt should be a mechanism for providing essential services and pooling resources, nothing more. Controlling every aspect of our lives because they think, and we think, that’s how we’ll stop anything bad ever happening to us, is like being in a state of perpetual infantilism.
I do so agree! I’m all in favour of small government and have a great fear of totalitarianism: scribbling “a plague o’ both your houses” on the ballot paper is now a real possibility come the next election.
With a captured mainstream media, scientists who’ve morphed into politicians, corporate giants making record amounts of cash, and spineless ‘leaders’ at the helm, I’m afraid to say it’s ‘game over’.
This never ends. It only gets worse.
The moment a crack seems to appear–will Fauci be sacked?–and predictions of the ‘house of cards’ tumbling start to flutter around, *bang* the next crisis will be unleashed.
Either a brand new variant with a scary name.
Or, the BIG one. The inevitable market crash will be ‘allowed’ to happen–the forces staving it off will just be turned off. Then, in that new pandemonium, the already Huge stack of unanswered allegations of corruptions will just get buried under a thousand more.
And Big Government will be there to save the day. We’ll get all sorts of Emergency Payments. Trillions will printed. And, just like that, the government will ‘take responsibility’ for everything, and we’ll Never Get Our Freedom Back.
-OR-
We just say enough.
Excellent piece exploring all the nuances here.
A further thought, much like that they wont touch the NHS, I wonder if the fact that it’s a Tory government also plays a part.
Whilst we have seen nothing from Labour to suggest they’d do different – or in fact even more – perhaps the Tories are too cautious to fulfil their role as the “nasty” party and so have been more cautious than they would have been.
Edmund Burke described the present situation perfectly: “it is in our nature, when we do not know what will happen to us, to fear the worst that can happen, and hence it is, that uncertainty is so terrible, that we often seek to be rid of it, at the hazard of certain mischief.” We have an incompetent government, using incompetent scientific advisors, and hysteria spread through all form of media.
You’d have thought not. But the polls don’t lie. Or do they?
To be fair, this disease did originate in China under suspicious circumstances. And I am an anti- lockdown/ anti mask proponent , I too was surprised how quickly it changed shape in India and spread like wildfire. People are spooked. They are spooked worldwide. The governments are unprepared for such an engineered virus. Even though lockdown doesn’t help, it is a way of the public saying “you screw8d up, you deal with it”.
But what is most true is that we are NOT in a normal natural world of risk any more. Escaped virus, record time vaccines to vaccinate the WHOLE world, mega tech companies for social & business & who have huge control over what we say. We are in an unusual era.
We who crave for liberty and talk of fearlessness, uncensored freedoms are of dying culture. And even more alarming is that this is a worldwide shift.
Creativity is ever more vital then.
We in the west have societies of old people, gerontosocieties. When I was in school we were preached about overpopulation, now we have quiet neighbourhoods, without the sound of children. We substituted children for idiotic pets and refer to them as people. And we are afraid. That’s how we think about the unknown, we fear it. Say what you will about Muslims in Europe ( and I have little nice to say about them) but at least they look into the future and have children.
Very insightful comment.
We’re all in this together — forever.
I think Boris has been against lockdowns from the start, it’s why I think those decisions have been somewhat less snappy than some would have liked. That is why I think these decisions are not really down to him, I think he is overriding his natural instincts to defer to what Whitty et al are telling him, under sufferance. The weird thing is, at the start Chris Whitty very eloquently explained basically the Swedish approach. They stuck to their guns, we didn’t. I sometimes wonder if they know something about this virus that we don’t which makes it more unpredictable (man made), or if there is some other pressure being brought to bear on this that will not be made fully public but is being deliberately drip fed to manipulate us into compliance (great reset). Or am I overthinking this and they really all are irredeemably evil charlatans out to ruin our lives to line their own pockets and are sitting in some No.10 office rubbing their hands with glee. Sorry I know for some people that’s the default position but it doesn’t persuade me. Politics is an ugly business and all it proves to me is that too much power in too few hands is never a good thing.
Interesting in this context to read the reply of the ethics commission in relation to the fear tactics accusation of the government:
The ethics of behavioural messaging during the covid-19 pandemic
The Ethics Committee of the BPS has reviewed and considered the above issue raised with the society.
On 5 February we issued a statement in response to emails detailing similar concerns. This response continues to be the BPS position.
Covid-19 is an extremely serious public health issue. The response to the pandemic is clearly a matter of social as well as individual concern. Indirect behavioural interventions are commonly employed in public health campaigns in order to safeguard the population. Given the scale of the mortality and morbidity caused by the pandemic the behavioural interventions employed by the UK Government have been proportionate and necessary.
The Ethics Committee believed that the contributions of psychologists in responding to the pandemic was entirely consistent with the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct, demonstrating social responsibility and the competent and responsible employment of psychological expertise.
The Committee also emphasised how psychologists’ shared values of respect, competence, responsibility and integrity will be vital in supporting the long-term recovery from the pandemic at both the individual and societal levels.
Kind regards
BPS Ethical Enquiries Team
Possible reply:
Dear Dr Roger Paxton, Chair of the BPS Ethics Committee,
This reply worries me very much: is this the end of real democracy?
Your answer suggests that the end justifies the means. That is a very dangerous position. I am sure I do not have to explain to you why.
I think it is much more ethical to work with shared values and integrity as you suggest in your last paragraph, to approach a serious public health issue.
Note, and research is suggesting this more and more, that the public health issue is indeed a new virus but much more the state of health of the population. (and this was know from the beginning)
From an ethical point of view the government should have:
Your reply is a political statement to avoid embarrassment of the government. If ethics means: I know and I tell you what you should do: it is time for you to put on your fascist uniform.
Your reply has no value in ethics. I am flabbergasted.